The March for Science Because There is No Planet B

As with most "Marches" that have happened in recent times, about the only thing that will be accomplished is:

A large group of scientist and spectators will get some fresh air and exercise. No change will be effected.

If the March for Science wasn't conflating a bunch of left wing BS with the importance of science in our lives I'd be happier about it and might even support it.

But after tweets calling ISIS "marginalized peoples" in response to using the MOAB on them and a whole host of other BS I have to wonder what the actual goal of this March is.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

TruMcCarthy,

I agree that adaptation will be the way to survive this, but mitigation is necessary also. Thankfully, the technologies required to make a start on mitigation of the threat, not to mention adapting to new circumstances, already exists, largely speaking. However, with the very departments most qualified to actually recommend and deploy these technological solutions to increasing sea levels, rising water acidity and temperature, changing weather patterns, threatened coastlines and so on, being defunded at a rapid rate, those solutions will not be forthcoming, by the time these things really start to bite.

With the greatest respect to our adapatability as a species, society as we know it will not survive at all, unless we make moves now to install science lead project managers, with far reaching powers to overrule and undermine political aims and financial concerns, so that they can force through the infrastructural change required to protect civilisation from its own stupidity. These changes include:

Coastal sea wall defences complicated enough to allow shipping, but simple enough to be effective at totally mitigating sea level rise threat for the next one to two hundred years at least, not to mention creating a platform for future erections of additional sea defences.

Updating the entirety of all national grids to be less inefficient, and removing all industrial scale fossil burning power production requirements by 2050, to be replaced with various renewable solutions including solar, wind, hydro electrical and tidal hydro electrical power production methods.

Slowly but surely developing technologies which will replace all current nuclear energy solutions, for example, banishing fission to the dark hole in the ground it deserves to be in, and replacing it entirely with fusion reactors.

Working out ways to break up increasingly violent weather systems, before they create nuclear bomb like devastation on populations on the ground.

Creating new codes for the construction of all habitation, so that those structures cannot be even slightly damaged by weather, flooding, war or any other thing. Think, ferrocrete geodesic structures, anchored so deeply into the Earth that they simply cannot be pulled up, blown away, or even slightly moved by any event outside, not to mention having internal emergency air supplies, and being pressure sealed from within.

Working out ways to capture the spare methane given off by big agricultural concerns, so that it can be either put to better use, or prevented from becoming a problem for the atmosphere.

Scrubbing excess carbon from the atmosphere retroactively, to undo some of the damage already done.

Preventing the break up of arctic ice sheets, reversing the warming of the oceans, the death of coral structures.

Reclaiming vast amounts of newly created desert land, and returning them to the verdant places they used to be, before over farming and deforestation stole away the nutrients in the land. This has been successfully attempted in regions of China, and could work for many more locations, increasing the amount of arable land, and the amount of surface area of the planet which is covered in oxygen producing, carbon dioxide munching vegetation.

These are big jobs, and if political and financial concerns continue to stand in the way of the effort to save our species from its own idiocy, then we are damning the future human being to witnessing the end of civilisation, and indeed the end of many species, perhaps a return to the point where only the microbes and the roaches are still around.

a reply to: SaturnFX

Paid for by the Koch brothers!

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

What's this got to do with Russia or Hillary?

So obsessed...

a reply to: projectvxn

But after tweets calling ISIS "marginalized peoples" in response to using the MOAB on them

Which scientists said this?

a reply to: Chadwickus

Indeed... I would like to know which scientists are saying that ISIS are marginalised peoples. I have a sneaking suspicion that such a term refers to the majority of the dead, and has nothing to do with the Kalashnikov wielding butchers we are shown in the press, or the western intelligence agencies which ensure they are paid and supplied.

Climate Change is real. The 'Anthropogenic' part less so. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. 400 ppm is still considered a starvation level for plant life. As for impact on climate, the effect of rising CO2 may have been significant in the last century but it is an inverse logarithmic effect, not geometric or linear.



edmhdotme.wordpress.com...

"The logarithmic diminution effect is the likely reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousand parts per million by volume, (ppmv)."

So I say, more CO2! Best way to feed people is with more agriculture.

a reply to: brutus61

Humans cause about 60 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than volcanoes do. But even if that weren't so, if humans caused the least bit of CO2 emissions it would still be outside the carbon cycle because we are digging up carbon the planet sequestered a long time ago and just because it's beneficial doesn't mean we should go overdosing our atmosphere with it. You can still get fat from eating too much broccoli and being fat isn't good for your body, is it?

originally posted by: DreamerOracle
Apophis won't have patience for the dumb ape.

A quote of the Age. He's losing patience fast.

This is all about money. The Trump administration is not stopping funding, the're cutting it back. We all know the federal government is bloated. I'm glad it's being cleaned up.

As already mentioned, where are the results of the billions that have already been spent? Why keep putting good money after bad? If you don't produce meaningful results, you're not doing your job. Simple as that. Theoretical papers are meaningful only once but that's all that seems to come form the science.

The science marches remind me of the minimum wage protests. Just people wanting more money but not willing to do more work or be held accountable to produce results.

It's always about the money no matter if it's the so-called evil corporations, the snowflake professors or scientists. All the same.

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

The parts of the federal budget which are bloated are the parts directly related to the MIC, and not the frontline section either, but the back room stuff, the supply lines, the intelligence budgets, the black budgets, the slush funding for projects you taxpayers must never know about for fear of revolution. That stuff taking a header would be great for all of you, would stop government over reach, would prevent all manner of imbalance from continuing.

But slashing science budgets makes precisely NO sense what so ever. In a period where developing space travel is becoming ever more necessary to increase our understanding of our universe, in a period where medical sciences are coming on so quickly, at a time where energy production advancements are so important to the immediate future of the species, the cuts are not justifiable in the least.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: brutus61
You can still get fat from eating too much broccoli and being fat isn't good for your body, is it?

Only if you have a Thyroid problem. Maybe that's it... earth has a malfunctioning thyroid!!!

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: projectvxn

But after tweets calling ISIS "marginalized peoples" in response to using the MOAB on them

Which scientists said this?

It was a tweet from the MforS twitter account.

a reply to: rickymouse

Throwing money at science to figure out what damage is being done,and what to do about the damage mankind does to the environment would be a good investment if adjustments were made to alleviate the effects of the regulations required to minimize or reverse that damage.

Money doesn't do anything for anybody if there is no clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, or non toxic food to eat.

Animals xit where they eat when they're in a cage, not in nature. Mankind isn't even that intelligent.

The ones concerned about going backwards are those who wouldn't know what to do if they were forced to live a more frugal life-style, yet they like to go camping...

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

As already mentioned, where are the results of the billions that have already been spent? Why keep putting good money after bad? If you don't produce meaningful results, you're not doing your job. Simple as that. Theoretical papers are meaningful only once but that's all that seems to come form the science.

You're kidding, right? "Blah, blah, blah...no results."

Your military budget is ~15 times greater than the science budget with trillions being spent in this century alone by Dems and Republican administrations. What about those results? Why keep investing half your budget on military when it isn't producing meaningful results? They're not doing their job and they've just had a healthy budget increase. A pay rise!! Simple as that!

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti
But slashing science budgets makes precisely NO sense what so ever. In a period where developing space travel is becoming ever more necessary to increase our understanding of our universe, in a period where medical sciences are coming on so quickly, at a time where energy production advancements are so important to the immediate future of the species, the cuts are not justifiable in the least.

I'm all for those things and I'm confident they will continue. There are plenty of NASA missions on the books and I'm happy that some of my taxes go towards that. It's a case of putting money where it's most effective. I'd like to see Europe spend more on science since defense is obviously not as big a piece of the budget. But to do that, people of Europe will have to give up something. What are you willing to give up?

a reply to: TrueBrit

well that was all fantasy you might get a couple of western countries to agree to that. Problem is developing countries wont. The only solution is to scrub CO2 from atmosphere. But i think it will probably be to late when they decide its needed. Because the western countries arent going to be willing to foot the bill for the rest of the countries. Only hope there is probably a NWO to get everyone on the same page. Ironic maybe global warming is what causes globalization many are pushing for.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Climate Change is real. The 'Anthropogenic' part less so. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. 400 ppm is still considered a starvation level for plant life. As for impact on climate, the effect of rising CO2 may have been significant in the last century but it is an inverse logarithmic effect, not geometric or linear.

edmhdotme.wordpress.com...

"The logarithmic diminution effect is the likely reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousand parts per million by volume, (ppmv)."

So I say, more CO2! Best way to feed people is with more agriculture.

At first everythings great. But like many marriages the longer they go on the worse things get. Until eventually you wake up one morning and find your stuff on the lawn. Mother nature can be very similar except instead of taking the house she destroys it.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

As already mentioned, where are the results of the billions that have already been spent? Why keep putting good money after bad? If you don't produce meaningful results, you're not doing your job. Simple as that. Theoretical papers are meaningful only once but that's all that seems to come form the science.

You're kidding, right? "Blah, blah, blah...no results."

Your military budget is ~15 times greater than the science budget with trillions being spent in this century alone by Dems and Republican administrations. What about those results? Why keep investing half your budget on military when it isn't producing meaningful results? They're not doing their job and they've just had a healthy budget increase. A pay rise!! Simple as that!

I'm not going to say I agree with the defense spending but I will say they produce results. There are a lot of innovations that come out of military development. It's unfortunate but that's the way it is.